Nick has lost at least round 1 in the courtroom, but most likely the legal battle is over.
The bigger issue we believe is whether athletes still protest against the restrictions. All this did was establish that legally USATF and USOC can make the logo only be an apparel logo.
I guess it's still far more valuable to sponsors to have their athlete participate and make the Oly team rather than sit out.
That T-Mobile dude just wasted his money.
Not only will USATF duct-tape over the logo, but Nick won't even make the Finals.
I still don't understand how allowing Brooks to advertise while prohibiting Run Gum from advertising does anything to protect the value of Olympic sponsorships.
By that logic, Brooks logos should also be banned for devaluing Olympic sponsorships and only Nike logos (IOC and IAAF sponsor) should be allowed. If anything allowing Brooks logos devalue the IOC and IAAF sponsorships MORE because they compete with Nike, while Run Gum doesn't compete with any other sponsor unless there's another gum or candy sponsor of the IOC that I'm not aware of.
If Run Gum starts to sell t-shirts on their website could they then qualify as an apparel manufacturer?
is funny complaints about the wasted expenditures of the UTAf. But then causes them to waste significant money on defending a baseless lawsuit. That's proving my point that doesn't really care about other athletes only himself
I thinkI think wrote:
is funny complaints about the wasted expenditures of the UTAf. But then causes them to waste significant money on defending a baseless lawsuit. That's proving my point that doesn't really care about other athletes only himself
No, it proves that the USATF doesn't care about the athletes they serve, only Nike.
I thinkI think wrote:
is funny complaints about the wasted expenditures of the UTAf. But then causes them to waste significant money on defending a baseless lawsuit. That's proving my point that doesn't really care about other athletes only himself
Ms. Hightower, let's talk about wasted expenditures.
USATF put up a whole ~$1.3 million reward pool for an Olympic medal and Siegel claims to be running an annual $30 million budget. Where's the other 28.7 million going every year?
The law is an ass wrote:
I still don't understand how allowing Brooks to advertise while prohibiting Run Gum from advertising does anything to protect the value of Olympic sponsorships.
By that logic, Brooks logos should also be banned for devaluing Olympic sponsorships and only Nike logos (IOC and IAAF sponsor) should be allowed. If anything allowing Brooks logos devalue the IOC and IAAF sponsorships MORE because they compete with Nike, while Run Gum doesn't compete with any other sponsor unless there's another gum or candy sponsor of the IOC that I'm not aware of.
I guess that logos on clothes aren't expressly ads and dumb tattoos are.
In the Olympics & WC other apparel logos are effectively banned by requiring use of official USA uniforms (remember Nick's tantrum last year?)
And it doesn't matter if there is a candy sponsor or not currently. There could be and it would limit the ability of the USOC to find those sponsors. I think M&M Mars was a sponsor at one point.
Besides run gum doesn't compete with candy, it's disgusting and should only compete with other gimmick products like crossfit, fat-flush diet pills or poop.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
I thinkI think wrote:is funny complaints about the wasted expenditures of the UTAf. But then causes them to waste significant money on defending a baseless lawsuit. That's proving my point that doesn't really care about other athletes only himself
Ms. Hightower, let's talk about wasted expenditures.
USATF put up a whole ~$1.3 million reward pool for an Olympic medal and Siegel claims to be running an annual $30 million budget. Where's the other 28.7 million going every year?
Are you nick? why do you parrot the stupid argument that was debunked a while ago.
the information is available on the USATF website.
kjVC wrote:
That T-Mobile dude just wasted his money.
Not only will USATF duct-tape over the logo, but Nick won't even make the Finals.
T-Mobile guy will get more than his moneys worth when media sources repeatedly talk and write pieces about why Symmonds is wearing tape on his arm. Symmonds is far and away the most marketing and promotions savvy dude in the sport right now not named Usain Bolt.
maybe he won't make the finals of the olympics, but he'll be top three at USAs for sure.you'll see. it's mid May, trials are in July. Symmonds knows how to be ready when it counts. look at his record - pretty impressive. he's a winner. i know you don't like him, and i probably wouldn't either if i met him, but he's a winner and good for the sport. you're just an anonymous a@@hole. BELOW I CAPITALIZED SOME KEY THINGS SO YOU DON'T MISS THEM.Nicholas "Nick" Symmonds (born December 30, 1983) is an American middle-distance track athlete, from Boise, Idaho, specializing in the 800 meters and 1500 meters distances. Symmonds recently signed with Brooks Running, (1/2/14). In college at Willamette University he WON SEVEN NCAA Division III titles in outdoor track. Symmonds is a 6-TIME US National 800 meters CHAMPION. He has competed over 800 m at the LAST TWO OLYMPIC GAMES, reaching the semi-finals in Beijing 2008, while in London 2012 he finished fifth in the FINAL, running a personal best of 1:42.95. He won a SILVER medal in the 800 meters at the 2013 World Championships, having previously finished sixth in the 2009 final and fifth in 2011.
kjVC wrote:
That T-Mobile dude just wasted his money.
Not only will USATF duct-tape over the logo, but Nick won't even make the Finals.
You can't go against the grain
There is no democracy in the US , corporations run this country
The man now dawg wrote:I guess that logos on clothes aren't expressly ads and dumb tattoos are.
I'm not talking about tattoos. I'm talking about the logos permitted at the US Olympic trials on singlets and shorts for apparel manufacturers. At the US Olympic trials, you can have a logo on your singlet and shorts for adidas, Brooks, New Balance, etc., who are direct competitors to Nike, an official sponsor of the IAAF and USOC.
The permitted logos by rival apparel manufacturers at the US trials makes Nike's sponsorship of the IAAF and USOC less valuable, according to the judge. So how does it make any sense to ban a Run Gum logo on a singlet and shorts when a Run Gum logo doesn't devalue any sponsorship UNLIKE the sponsorships that are permitted?
If the rationale for the rule is that logos on singlets devalue Nike's sponsorship of the IAAF and USOC, then logos by adidas, Brooks, New Balance, etc. should be banned instead of logos for Run Gum. The supposed rationale for the rule makes no sense.
kjVC is a huge deadbeat wrote:
maybe he won't make the finals of the olympics, but he'll be top three at USAs for sure.
you'll see. it's mid May, trials are in July. Symmonds knows how to be ready when it counts. look at his record - pretty impressive.
he's a winner. i know you don't like him, and i probably wouldn't either if i met him, but he's a winner and good for the sport.
you're just an anonymous a@@hole.
BELOW I CAPITALIZED SOME KEY THINGS SO YOU DON'T MISS THEM.
Nicholas "Nick" Symmonds (born December 30, 1983) is an American middle-distance track athlete, from Boise, Idaho, specializing in the 800 meters and 1500 meters distances. Symmonds recently signed with Brooks Running, (1/2/14). In college at Willamette University he WON SEVEN NCAA Division III titles in outdoor track. Symmonds is a 6-TIME US National 800 meters CHAMPION. He has competed over 800 m at the LAST TWO OLYMPIC GAMES, reaching the semi-finals in Beijing 2008, while in London 2012 he finished fifth in the FINAL, running a personal best of 1:42.95. He won a SILVER medal in the 800 meters at the 2013 World Championships, having previously finished sixth in the 2009 final and fifth in 2011.
Are you his boyfriend/Coach?
I understand that this is the Olympics they are talking about, which makes the issue a bit different what with the history etc.
But this is the stance taken by the IAAF in all other major athletics meetings. And I find that quite sad.
The sport is being killed off top-down; I've said it before and I'll say it again. The problem financially and everything that stems from that is created by those in charge. The public enjoys athletics, sponsors want to get involved (as Nick showed), it is those in charge that oppose commercialisation. I am not sure how in a supposedly pure capitalist country like the USA this sort of thing is tolerated and even encouraged by the fans it seems (on this site).
No sponsors = no money = lower participation = less public interest.
I do think Seb the political businessman may change this for the better.
I don't get it. Why don't the advertisers register USATF clubs? I mean, the article says:
The current logo restrictions in place say athletes can only have one non-club logo on their jersey and it can only be the logo of their apparel manufacturer.
So why doesn't RunGUM or whatever just pay the USATF the $100 or whatever it costs to register the "Brooks - Run Gum Track Club" and then plaster the singlet with whatever logo they want?
I think the current rules suck for athletes - particularly mid-tier who might get paid to wear ads.
But why doesn't someone just totally screw with the USATF with an advertising-driven club logo?
The economics of it are that governing organizations want to suck up all the economic value in the sport that they can and then control the money. This puts them in competition with the athletes and causes them to take economic opportunities (like advertising) from athletes.
The judge says this is a good thing and what Congress intended in order to fund the USOC and the USATF's piece of Team USA. This made sense when Olympic athletes were amateurs and the USOC and USATF's job was to dole out funds to amateur athletes. At one point the judge says that national governing bodies like the USATF "are fundamental for coordinating amateur athletics in the United States; they exercise 'monolithic control over particular sports...." Of course track at the US trials level hasn't actually been amateur for decades. What made sense when the sport was all amateur and what makes sense now that most top athletes are professionals aren't the same.
100% agree. Athletics is behind the times.
The law is an ass wrote:
I still don't understand how allowing Brooks to advertise while prohibiting Run Gum from advertising does anything to protect the value of Olympic sponsorships.
By that logic, Brooks logos should also be banned for devaluing Olympic sponsorships and only Nike logos (IOC and IAAF sponsor) should be allowed. If anything allowing Brooks logos devalue the IOC and IAAF sponsorships MORE because they compete with Nike, while Run Gum doesn't compete with any other sponsor unless there's another gum or candy sponsor of the IOC that I'm not aware of.
Agree I can follow the idea no conflicting sponsors using a list that makes an athletes sponsor in conflict when there is an existing OG sponsorship in that category or an addition to the "Official OG Sponsor List" appears.
Does Nike get to double dip and add a second Nike logo in the space --lets call it the athletes sponsorship position- on the team uniform?
Is the ruling designed to reinforce the no implication the athlete is sponsored by Nike by wearing the Nike branded team uniform idea? Since most athletes are sponsored by apparel manufactures did the court make the ruling kind of a "one size fits most" ruling. Apparel in and EVERYTHING else out.